Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

Chapter 2

Factors Influencing Learningand Communication

Enrique and Danielle are in the teachers lounge savoring the last dropsof their coffee before scurrying off to their first period class. Rosa ParksMiddle School, where Enrique and Danielle teach, is located in a low-income ethnically diverse community. For many students, English is nottheir first language and the verbal skills of many other students arebelow grade level. The test scores at Rosa Parks have been low and thePrincipal has made it very clear that she expects substantial improve-ment. Teachers like Enrique and Danielle face a daunting tasktheymust meet state standards, raise test scores, and excite the students aboutlearning. It is in this context that teachers can easily forget their funda-mental chargeto help students learn.

Learning is a complex process entailing a number of interrelated fac-tors. Enrique and Danielle will be more effective in the classroom whenthey have a deep understanding of these factors, then they can developteaching strategies to meet their instructional goals and address the needsof students. In this chapter we will define the learning context and exam-ine three areas that are related to the teaching learning process: studentabilities, student motivation and classroom communication.

Reflection

What role does communication play in the learning process?

How can a teacher motivate a student to learn?

The Learning Context

Our definition of communication states that people act upon the mean-ings they construct. Our view of learning follows from our definition ofcommunication. It is not fruitful to believe that students are empty vesselsto be filled with intellectual fluid. Rather, students are active agents in the

Powell, R., & Powell, D. (2010). Classroom Communication and Diversity: Enhancing instructional practice (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.

creation and management of educational material. Constructivism, a per-spective that has been studied in communication and education, resonateswith our view. Kellys (1955) Personal Construct Theory, Piagets (1955)Developmental Theory, and Meads (1934) Theory of SymbolicInteractionism provide the conceptual basis for this perspective. Brooksand Brooks (1993) summarized constructivist processes when they stated:

Each of us makes sense of our world by synthesizing new experiencesinto what we have previously come to understand. Often weencounter an object, an idea, a relationship, or a phenomenon thatdoesnt quite make sense to us. When confronted with such initiallydiscrepant data or perceptions, we either interpret what we see toconform to our present set of rules for explaining or ordering theworld, or we generate a new set of rules that better accounts for whatwe perceive is occurring. Either way our perceptions and rules areconstantly engaged in a grand dance that shapes our understandings.

(p. 4)

Thus, learning occurs through the continuous building, integration,organization, and rebuilding of material. At the core of this perspectiveis the recognition that language, culture, home, and community playimportant roles in the knowledge structures students possess. Consider,for example, the way that a class discussion on music would be impactedby culture. One family may listen to rancheras, corridos, cumbias, andmarriachi music. Another may listen to country western, bluegrass, andgospel. The discussion of music will be intimately tied to the studentsexperiences.

Culture also influences the constructs that students have for managingsocial situations. An Iranian student new to America went shopping forclothes at a department store. After selecting the shirt he wished to pur-chase, he haggled with the clerk over the price. The Iranian studentequated buying a shirt in a department store with buying a shirt in theopen marketplace in Tehran where negotiating the price is the commonpractice.

Constructivist approaches recognize that students come to the instruc-tional context with different levels of competencies, interests, and expe-riences. Unfortunately, much of our educational curriculum is based ona one size fits all metaphor. As students move through the system, littleeffort is spent on tailoring instructional cloth to better fit each student.Unfortunately learning does not follow this pattern. Students come toclass in many different shapes and sizes.

Indeed, students draw upon a range of interpersonal and educationalconstructs to learn instructional material and manage classroom rela-tionships. Garcia (1999) stated that meaningful instruction accounts for

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication 27

the socio-cultural, linguistic, and experiential background of students.While an instructor may have jurisdiction over curriculum, ultimatelythe student has jurisdiction over what it means (Wenger, 1998). In otherwords, students use their experiences and abilities to make sense out ofthe instructional material.

Because learning entails the negotiation of instructional material, it isdifficult to isolate the specific ways that teaching influences learning.Some theorists go as far to contend that teaching plays a rather minorrole in learning (e.g. the Coleman Report, 1966; Heath & Nielson, 1974;Mosteller & Moynihan, 1972). The findings of this early research indi-cated that family socio-economic status, ethnicity, and family back-ground are more important predictors of achievement than teaching.Think about arguments teachers like Enrique and Danielle make whenthey try to explain the low scores of their students on state achievementtests. These teachers recognize that there are significant factors outsideof the school that influence learning. At the same time, we do not wantto argue that teachers do little to influence learning process. Friedrich(1982) argued that three sets of interrelated variables account for class-room learning: student ability, student motivation, and the quality ofclassroom communication are the primary factors influencing achieve-ment. These three areas provide a useful starting point for our discussionof the relationship between teaching and learning.

Student Ability

We argued earlier that students enter the classroom with a wide range ofabilities and competencies. Friedrich (1982) contended that these abilitiesaccount for a substantial amount of variance on a range of cognitive out-come assessments (i.e. achievement tests, aptitude tests, general intelligencemeasures, unit measures). The scores that students receive on standardizedassessments, such as multiple choice tests, may have more to do with theintellectual predilections of the student than with the classroom instruction.

Recent developments in cognitive psychology give insight into theintellectual capacities that students possess and bring to the instructionalscene. Gardner (1983, 1993, 1999) proposed a provocative frameworkthat has dramatically influenced educational practices. In his originalwork, Frames of Mind, Gardner outlined seven intelligences and in TheDisciplined Mind, he added an eighth intelligence. Following is a briefdiscussion of these intelligences:

Linguistic Intelligence entails the ability to use words effectively inboth oral and written modes for a variety of purposes such as debate,poetry, prose writing, story telling, and persuasion. Individuals withhighly developed linguistic intelligence enjoy verbal jousting, puns,

28 Foundations


and other forms of word play. These individuals achieve best whenthey can speak, listen, read, or write.

Logical-Mathematical Intelligence involves the capacity to reason, tothink atomistically, and linearly. People who employ logical-mathe-matical intelligence are effective at finding patterns, establishingcausal relationships, and working through formulas. Among theprocesses that emerge with this intelligence are categorization, clas-sification, hypothesis testing and generalization.

Spatial Intelligence addresses the ability to perceive, create, and re-create visual images and pictures. Individuals who are strong in spa-tial intelligence, perceive small details, and are sensitive to color,tone, composition, shape, and form. This intelligence entails thecapacity to visualize and represent ideas graphically or spatially.

Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence involves the ability to use ones bodyto express ideas and feelings. Among the defining features of thisintelligence is heightened tactile competence, coordination, balance,dexterity, and flexibility.

Musical Intelligence is the ability to understand, create, interpret anddiscriminate among musical forms. Musically intelligent people havethe ability to sing in key, keep tempo, and are sensitive to rhythm,pitch, and melody.

Interpersonal Intelligence requires individuals to be socially and per-sonally perceptive. These individuals are able to perceive the moodsand feelings of others and adapt messages to the demands of socialsituations. Interpersonally intelligent people enjoy social settings andwork well with other people.

Intrapersonal Intelligence entails the ability to be in touch with onesemotional state and predispositions. Individuals who are aware oftheir inner moods, intentions, motivations, temperaments, anddesires and have the capacity for self-discipline are intra personallyintelligent. This intelligence helps individuals create a realisticview of their strengths and weaknesses.

Naturalist Intelligence is the capacity to be attuned to natural worldof plants and animals. Individuals who possess this intelligence enjoythe outdoors, are aware of patterns in nature and have a deep appre-ciation for the environment.

It should not be surprising that students will be drawn to academic taskswhere they feel most competent. Students with logical-mathematicalintelligence will enjoy and perform well in math and science and studentswith linguistic competence will enjoy and perform well in language arts.

Gardner cautioned against viewing these intelligences as fixed and dis-crete. Individuals possess each of the intelligences to a degree but one ortwo may be particularly dominant.

Reflection

What are your strongest intelligences?

How are these intelligences manifested?

How can teachers build on student intelligences?

A number of recent educational textbooks discuss ways to integrate mul-tiple intelligences into educational practice (Armstrong, 2000; Carrozza,1996; Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000). Silver, Strong, and Perini (2000),for example, outlined strategies for realigning the curriculum to accountfor learning style and multiple intelligences (MI). The authors also pro-vided guidelines for developing authentic assessments. Armstrong (2000)discussed ways to develop a MI portfolio. He identifies what should beincluded in such a portfolio and ways to evaluate it. The instructionalapproaches using multiple intelligences are concerned with measuringstudent growth and development, not with indexing student deficit.Building and extending student strength is one way to create moreengaged and enthused learners.

Emotional Intelligence

Goleman (1995) extended Gardners work into the area of emotionalability. Individuals who are emotionally intelligent are tuned into theiraffective states. There is growing interest in the area of emotion andlearning. Goleman identified five dimensions of emotional intelligence:

Knowing ones emotions: Recognizing a feeling as it happens. Theability to monitor feelings is crucial to psychological insight and self-understanding.

Managing emotions: Appropriately handling feelings. The ability towork through anxiety or gloom is central to success.

Motivating oneself: Marshalling emotions in service of a goal isessential to paying attention, for self-motivation and mastery.

Recognizing emotions in others: Empathy is a fundamental socialskill. People who are empathic are attuned to subtle social signalsindicating how people feel.

Handling relationships: Skill in managing relationships, popularity,leadership and interpersonal effectiveness.

Emotional intelligence plays an important role in the classroom. The wayin which students manage their emotions influences their approach toacademic tasks and their ability to work with other students. Healy

30 Foundations

(1998) argued that social-emotional factors are important predictors ofacademic and lifetime success. She described a study that investigatedpreschoolers ability to delay immediate gratification. The preschoolerswere given one marshmallow and told that if they could wait 1520 min-utes, they would get two marshmallows. These students were evaluated14 years later. The results indicated that the students who could delaygratification scored higher on the SAT, were better liked by teachers andpeers, and were more emotionally stable.

The research on emotional intelligence is compelling. Encouragingstudents to work before play, to be diligent in the face of adversity, to berespectful and caring, helps foster an attitude of self-efficacy, which inturn positively impacts academic achievement.

Perspectives on Motivation

Student interests, attitudes, and self-views relate to how motivated andengaged they are in the learning material. Maehr and Meyer (1997)argued, motivation is at the heart of teaching and learning (p. 372).Adolescents spend tremendous amounts of time e-mailing friends, con-necting on networks such as My Space, and talking on the telephone.Redirecting these energies to academic tasks is more challenging. To betterunderstand the role of motivation it is helpful to review the perspectives thathave been used to explain how motivation works in educational settings. Inthe next section we will examine some of the contemporary perspectives onmotivation in education.

Seifert (2004) argues that four major theoriesself-efficacy, attribu-tion theoryself-worth theory, and achievement goal theory are promi-nent in education. Each of these perspectives offers important insightinto the factors that influence students academic investments.

Self-Efficacy Theory

The key theorist of self-efficacy theory is Albert Bandura (1981, 1986,1991, 1997). He argued that individuals develop judgments about theirpersonal effectiveness which he labeled self-efficacy. Individuals whobelieve that they can successfully complete a task will expend the neces-sary effort to accomplish it. When individuals have low expectations,they are less likely to expend the time and effort on the task.

Bandura (1997) discussed four factors that influence a persons judg-ments of self-efficacy. The first factor is enactive influences. These judg-ments result from the way in which a person performs certain tasks.According to Bandura (1997), enactive experiences are the most power-ful because they provide the most authentic evidence of whether the indi-vidual can access what it takes to succeed. Success leads to a strong belief


in ones personal efficacy. However, efficacy does not always follow fromsuccess. Individuals who only succeed at easy tasks may come to losepatience and not persist when the tasks become more troublesome.

A second factor influencing self-efficacy is vicarious experience.Individuals continually compare their own competencies with others.Modeling, then, serves as another way to achieve personal efficacy. Themost powerful effect is based on peer comparisons. An individuals self-efficacy is not affected by comparisons with substantially younger, older,or substantially more talented others.

Miller (2000) examined the effects of internal and external compar-isons on self-regulated learning. Self-comparisons (internal) occur whenstudents compare their ability in one area, such as English, with theirability in another area such as math. External comparison occurs whenstudents compare their performance in an academic area with that oftheir peers. The results indicated that students gave more weight to exter-nal comparisons than self-evaluations. This tendency, although under-standable, is also problematic. Individuals do not always haveinformation to make accurate comparisons. Skill levels, the amount oftime on task, and interest can vary from student to student and are fre-quently ignored when comparisons are made. Miller (2000) suggestedthat educators should help students develop more balanced constructs oftheir abilities.

The third way that individuals develop self-efficacy is through persua-sion. Bandura (1997) argued that persuasion has its greatest impact onthose who have some reason to believe that they can achieve their goals.Persuasive information focusing on the targets ability and effort seemsto positively influence efficacy. Persuasive messages focusing only oneffort, however, can be counterproductive to the development of efficacy.If an individual does not have the necessary skills, no amount of effortwill impact self-efficacy. Simply telling a student to work harder will notbe an effective strategy.

Two additional features play an important role in the effects of per-suasion. One involves the credibility of the source and the second entailsthe discrepancy between what individuals are told and their view ofthemselves. Research in persuasion clearly indicates that source credibil-ity is one of the most powerful features of persuasive communication(Bostrom, 1983). Information from a low credible source, even when itis accurate, may be distorted or discounted. The persuasive effects onself-efficacy are directly related to the credibility of the sender.

Self-efficacy is also related to the degree of disparity between the infor-mation received and the individuals view of self. Bandura (1977b) notedthat information might differ minimally, moderately, or markedly from apersons view of self (p. 105). For example, one high school baseballplayer had a successful season in his senior year in high school and

32 Foundations

received an offer to play baseball at a major university. The youngsterscoach encouraged him to consider taking this opportunity, but the youngman did not believe that he had enough talent, regardless of the statisticsand the arguments from his coach. Rather than going to the large school,he decided to attend a local community college where he believed thatthere was a better fit for his talent.

The final factor influencing self-efficacy involves physiological and affec-tive states. Arousal states can vary from falling asleep in class to sufferingpanic attacks. Some tasks create great anxiety for students, which influencestheir ability to complete the task. For example, many students have tremen-dous fear of public speaking (communication apprehension) and the anxietyattached to this activity negatively affects performance. High apprehensivestudents break out in hives, their voice quivers, and their stomach achesin anticipation of a five-minute presentation. Other students enjoy publicspeaking and channel their energy and excitement into dramatic delivery.

Self-efficacy is impacted by the way individuals work through theseaffective states. Bandura (1997) stated that an understanding of emo-tional states is developed through a process of social labeling that is coor-dinated with lived events. Children may experience an internal state(anger) and behave in a way that is connected to the emotion. Parents,teachers, and peers help identify the emotional state (e.g. Youre madbecause you didnt get your way, Are you too embarrassed to read?).The effects on self-efficacy relate to the way in which individuals learnto label and manage these emotional states. The manifestation of theseemotions and the way they are processed, explained, negotiated, andmanaged has a great deal to do with the development of efficacy. Studentswith higher levels of emotional intelligence are better able to stay focusedon a task and persist through difficult situations.

Attribution Theory

Attribution theory builds on many of the assumptions of self-efficacytheory and also provides important insight into the factors influencingmotivation. The conceptual foundation of attribution theory comes fromHeider (1958), Jones and Davis (1965), and Kelley (1967). These theo-rists proposed that individuals are nave scientists who search forcausal reasons that explain behavior. Heider (1958) contended that atask outcome might be attributed to four attributional variables: thedegree of ability possessed by the actor, the amount of effort expended,the difficulty of the task, and chance factors in the environment.

Weiner (1984, 1985) contended that attributions invoke emotionswhich influence task engagement. For example, an outcome such as fail-ing or passing a test may result in an emotional reaction. To assess thisemotional response, the individual turns to three primary characteristics:


locus of causality (the cause resides in the individual or the situation),stability (the cause is always present, or the cause varies), and controlla-bility (the agent can affect the cause or the outcome is out of the agentscontrol). Research on attribution theory suggests that individuals whoare successful tend to attribute success to internal cause (ability, effort)and individuals who are unsuccessful tend to attribute failure to externalcauses (unclear instructions, lack of time).

Seifert (2004) stated that students who attribute success and failure tointernal, controllable causes have higher self-esteem, will engage in moredifficult tasks, and will persist in the face of adversity. On the otherhand, students who attribute success to external forces (luck, the taskwas easy) are less likely to experience positive emotions such as pride orconfidence. And learned helplessness, the most problematic attribution,occurs when students feel that no amount of effort will make a differencebecause they do not have the ability to control or influence an outcome.

Heidi and Harackiewicz (2000) argued that interest also influencesattributional processes. Interest was conceptualized as the interactiverelation between individuals and certain aspects of their environment(Heidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). Some individuals are interested in socialstudies, some soccer, others fashion. Interest can be considered a stateand a disposition of the individual and has cognitive and affective fea-tures. Research suggests that interest plays an important role in acade-mic performance. It stands to reason that students will be more attentiveto and expend more effort in subject areas that interest them.

Researchers differentiate between two types of interest. Individualinterest is a stable internal disposition that develops over time in relationto a particular topic or subject area. A student, therefore, may developan interest in history that lasts throughout his or her educational experi-ence. Situational interest, on the other hand is generated by certain fea-tures of the environment that draw attention and focus to a particulararea. The interest fostered in this context, may or may not last. Forexample, a dramatic lecture or a novel experiential activity may activatestudent interest in a topic that was previously considered boring.

Heidi and Harackiewicz (2000) noted that individual and situationalinterests may be distinct but they are not bi-polar. Individual interest canserve as a filter for situational interest and situational interest may feedindividual interest. The authors contended:

individual interest in a particular topic may help students perse-vere through boring presentations or text about that topic, and situ-ational interest elicited by presentations or texts may maintainmotivation and performance when individuals have no personalinterest in particular topics.

(p. 155)

34 Foundations

We can see how interest is also related to intrinsic motivation. Intrinsicmotivation is defined as the motivation to engage in activities for theirown sake (ibid.). This definition incorporates both individual and situa-tional interest. Some students may inhale the Harry Potter novelsbecause they are positively disposed to reading. Interest in reading mayalso be promoted for situational reasons. Individuals may be assigned aHarry Potter novel for a class assignment and become so interested in itthat they read the entire series.

Self-Worth Theory

Covington (2000) argued that that academic goals embraced by studentsrepresent an attempt to create and maintain self-worth in a culture thatvalues competency and success. He contended that grades play a domi-nant role in the way a student judges self-worth. He further argued thatwhile grades are important, they are only one measure of success. Somestudents attempt to be the best they can be and do not compare their per-formance to others. These students are likely to take on difficult tasksand feel comfortable with academic challenges. Other students see abil-ity as a function of status and thus compare their performances with others.These students are more likely to avoid failure rather than strive for suc-cess. Students who are driven to avoid failure employ several self-protective mechanisms, according to Covington (2000).

Self-worth protection involves withholding the effort when risking failure.When this strategy is invoked, the self-concept appears to be protectedbecause the cause of failure remains ambiguous. Students who are repri-manded by friends, teachers or parents for not trying are receiving an exter-nal message that they are incompetent. They failed because they did not try.

A second strategy is self-handicapping. Here the student creates a realor imagined barrier which provides a convenient excuse. According toCovington, procrastination and setting unrealistic goals are typical tac-tics that failure-avoiding students employ. The student who studies at thelast minute and fails cannot be criticized for not having the ability. Andthe student who succeeds is perceived to be especially talented. Anothertactic is to establish unrealistic goals. A student cannot be blamed forfailing at a difficult task. Finally, a student may state a worthy goal, suchas claiming he or she will do better on the next exam without a reason-able analysis of how to achieve it.

According to Covington (2000), the third strategy is defensive pes-simism. Students using this defensive strategy maintain low expectationsof ever succeeding or trivialize the importance of the assignment.Defensive pessimism helps the student manage the anxiety that mayoccur when the student takes an assignment seriously but knows they donot have the ability to fulfill it.


Effort is a key feature of self-worth theory. Failure-avoidant studentslink effort with ability. Because successful students are bright, they donthave to work hard. People who work hard are not considered to bebright. Seifert (2004) stated that success that comes from ability results inpride. Success that comes from low effort implies ability and also resultsin pride. Failure that is a function of low effort results in guilt but failurethat results from low ability results in humiliation. Covington (2000) con-tended that students would rather experience guilt than humiliation.Thus, rather than work hard and fail (leading to humiliation), they willnot work hard and fail (guilt). Self-worth theory helps teachers under-stand the choices students make. According to Covington (2000), the cen-tral issue for students is to protect their sense of self-worth.

Achievement Goal Theory

Dweck (1986) contended that motivation is related to the way studentsconceptualize their learning goals. He specified two sets of goals.Learning goals refer to increasing an individuals competence, under-standing, and insight. Intelligence and learning for these individuals ismalleable. Success or failure does not have a substantial effect on thelearners identity or sense of self-worth. Performance goals, in contrast,are those in which individuals seek a favorable evaluation of their com-petence. Intelligence following from a performance goal orientation isconsidered fixed and static. According to Dweck (1986), these differentcognitive sets take students in vastly different directions. The individualwho is competency oriented is more likely to attribute success to persis-tence and effort. Failure is not viewed as a reflection on personal iden-tity. The individual who is performance oriented and sees intelligence asfixed does not see that effort and ability lead to success and, therefore,may take on academic tasks that are less challenging. They ask for agreat deal of guidance on assignments, may avoid certain classes orteachers and may be more inclined to cheat.

Each of the perspectives reviewed above offer important insights intothe processes influencing motivation. Each perspective addresses the roleof perceived competence. That is, a student is likely to invest in an aca-demic task when they feel they can successfully accomplish it. When theydo not feel that they can be successful, they use strategies to protect theirpersonal identities. The other common thread is the important role thatemotions play in motivation. How students feel about their abilities andthe meaningfulness of the task they are performing are what Weiner(1984, 1985) labeled motivational catalysts. The affective orientationcan serve to bolster or constrain effort and learning.

Seifert (2004) identified five major patterns that are reflected in theperspectives used to study motivation. The first pattern is concerned with

36 Foundations

mastery. Students who have learning goals or who are internally moti-vated, will have positive affect, will persist in tasks, are resilient andlearn from their mistakes (e.g. Dweck, 1986; Weiner, 1984, 1985).

A second pattern is failure avoidance. These students have performancegoals, are externally motivated, and are driven to protect their individualidentities. According to Seifert (2004), these students believe that out-comes are beyond their control and as tasks grow in difficulty, they arelikely to engage in failure-avoiding behaviors to reduce threat to self.

The third pattern is learned helplessness. These students will notexpend the effort because they believe it will result in success. Suchstudents make internal, stable and controllable attributions for failurebut make external attributions for success. In other words, this studentwill say, I failed because I am incompetent or I succeeded becauseI was lucky. Students with this orientation are particularly challengingfor teachers.

The fourth pattern involves students who are bright but bored. Thesestudents do not see meaning or value in the task and spend only the nec-essary effort to fulfill minimal expectations. Seifert contended that thestudent with learning goals would seek out meaning in the task while thebored student expects the teacher to make the task meaningful.

The fifth is the hostile work avoidant pattern. Seifert stated that thehostile student does not engage in academic tasks as a way to punish theteacher. This strategy may be another way the student protects self-worth. They may resent the work required and therefore refuse to do it.Several years ago one of the authors had an athlete in class who refusedto complete a required assignment. When asked why, he stated, I donthave to do this crap, Im on the basketball team. This response is typi-cal of hostile students.

What then can teachers do with this information on motivation? Thisis a difficult question but the literature reviewed above suggests thatstudent motivation is enhanced when they develop mastery over thetasks they are required to perform. Gettinger and Stoiber (1999) pro-vided recommendations that may enhance motivation. They suggestedthat teachers should assign tasks that are moderately challenging butwithin the students ability. Second, teachers should link student successto the effort they put forth. When this occurs, students are more likely totake control of their academic engagement. Third, teachers should createopportunities for students to be successful.

Consider the following example. George is struggling with algebra.He studies but continues to fail the examinations at the end of the week.He questions his ability and spends less time studying. For George, it istoo painful to work hard only to fail. One day, while grading the tests,the teacher discovers that George transposes numbers when he is writ-ing the algebra formulas. Rather than writing down the number 23 in a


formula he writes the number 32. The teacher reviews all of Georgesprevious quizzes and finds that this is a consistent pattern. The teacherhas a conference with George and carefully explains this error. In thenext quiz, the teacher continues to remind George to make sure that hehas not transposed any numbers. After George turns in the quiz, theteacher checks his answers and tells him that his scores have improvedsignificantly. After this intervention, George continues to show improve-ment in algebra and his spending more and more time in this subject.

In this example, the teacher used a strategy that would directly influ-ence Georges mastery over the content. He is frustrated with his mathscores and wants to understand why he is having a problem. His inter-est is piqued when the teacher explains why his answers have been incor-rect. She encourages George and states, Hey bud, you can do this, butmake sure you dont flop your numbers. I will watch to see if you makethis mistake during the quiz.

George now understands his error and corrects it, and as a result histest scores improve. When he corrected the problem and improved hisquiz scores, his feelings of competence increased because he felt morecontrol over the outcome. This scenario is designed to illustrate the sub-tle ways that teachers can help students increase their competence whichwill also increase their motivation.

So far we have examined two areas that are related to academic per-formance, student ability and motivation. In the next section we will turnour attention to the communication processes that occur in the class-room context. First, we will describe the dominant features of instruc-tional communication and then we will explore the communicationbehaviors that have been linked to academic performance.

Reflection

Identify and discuss teaching strategies that increase

student interest.

What are your academic goals and how do they influence

your motivation in a class?

Which perspective on motivation best explains your

approach to academic tasks?

Identify and discuss your favorite academic subjects.

Communication Processes

Thus far, we have discussed the effects of student ability and motivationon learning. We will shift our focus to the third factor component of the

38 Foundations

learning model explicated by Friedrich (1982)the quality of classroomcommunication. The effects of classroom communication are circularand their impact on learning and achievement are difficult to determine.Further, differences in contexts and the methodological variations usedto study communication make comparisons problematic. Nevertheless,there are some trends that have been identified and in the next sectionwe will review the dominant communication patterns occurring ininstructional contexts.

Instructional Patterns

Belleck, Kliebard, Hyman, and Smith (1966) characterized classroominteraction as a game with rules that teachers and students follow.Four communication moves are used in the game. Structuring moves areused to establish the context for appropriate student behavior. Teachersmight say, This morning we are going to discuss the reading assign-ment I made yesterday. Soliciting moves seek to elicit a verbal responsefrom the students. Did you bring your cultural artifacts for todays dis-cussion? Responding moves follow from soliciting moves. They consistof the responses to student answers. Reacting moves are statements usedto modify, or evaluate what students have said. When classroom com-munication is defined in this fashion, the teacher is expected to do mostof the talking. In most classrooms, teachers talk approximately 70% ofthe time.

Haslett (1987) stated that instructional communication entails threelanguage functions. One function involves directing students. This typeof communication is concerned with giving students the information nec-essary to complete an instructional task. A second language function,informing, involves giving students new content. The third languagefunction, eliciting, involves soliciting student responses. Asking studentsif they understand a task is an example of eliciting.

Cazden (1988) stated that the fundamental pattern of classroom inter-action is the three-turn unit called the IRE. In this pattern, the teacherinitiates a communication exchange, (I) a student responds, (r) and thenthe teacher comments on the response (E). Cazden stated that the initia-tion usually comes in the form of a question. Teacher questioning, then,is one of the dominant forms of communication used in the classroom.

The research cited above suggests that teachers engage in a limitedrange of behaviors. They give information, they ask for information, anddirect student behavior. These descriptions, while informative, do notprovide insight into the effects of these communication patterns onstudent learning and achievement. Research shows that the use of ques-tions, and teacher clarity, impact learning (Brophy & Good, 2000;Kindsvatter, Wilen, & Ishler, 1996).


Questions

Questions are used by teachers to invite student participation and engagethem in learning. Brophy and Good (2000) stated that research spanning30 years shows that frequent questioning by teachers correlates posi-tively with student achievement. Maximum effects on learning, however,are related to the clarity of the question and the way it is managed.Kindsvatter, Wilen, and Ishler (1996) stated that student achievement isenhanced when teachers ask clearly phrased questions, probe studentresponses, redirect questions to non-participating students, wait for studentresponses, and provide feedback on the accuracy of student responses.Learning is not linked to the difficulty of the question. Teachers can aska series of lower order questions and then build to higher level ones.Asking only one type of cognitive question (all low or all high) does notappear to promote learning. We discuss the use of questions in more detailin Chapter 9.

Clarity

Teacher clarity has also been linked to academic achievement. Clarity isfacilitated when the teacher uses communication strategies to enhanceunderstanding of instructional material. Bush (1977) conceptualizedteacher clarity in terms of seven behaviors: (1) gives examples andexplains them; (2) explains the work to be done, and how to do it; (3)gives written examples; (4) uses common examples; (5) gives explana-tions that the students understand; (6) speaks so that all the students canhear; and (7) takes time when explaining. Behaviors that detract fromclarity include ambiguity, vagueness, hedging, bluffing, insufficientexamples, and mazes (false starts, halts in speech, redundancy in spokenwords). Bush, Kennedy, and Cruickshank (1977) used factor analysis toidentify the underlying dimensions of teacher clarity. They found thatclear teachers: (1) explained ideas; and (2) used ample illustrations whileexplaining ideas; and giving directions.

Hines, Cruickshank, and Kennedy (1985) examined teacher clarityand its effects on student achievement and satisfaction. Three types ofclarity behaviors were examined: (1) teacher stresses important aspectsof content; (2) teacher explains content by use of examples; and (3)teacher assesses and responds to perceived deficiencies in understanding.The results indicated that cognitive achievement and satisfaction withthe instruction was positively related to teacher clarity.

After a systematic review of the literature Brophy and Good (1986)stated that achievement is maximized when teachers actively presentmaterial, structure it with overviews, provide internal summaries, andsignal important main ideas. These communication strategies require

40 Foundations

teachers to use examples that connect with the experiences ofstudents.

Although the behaviors reviewed above may facilitate understanding,we want to emphasize that clarity is unlikely to occur when a teacheruses low inference clarity behaviors. Students process information interms of their own frames of reference and signal their understanding orlack of understanding of the material to the teacher. Ultimately, clarity isthe result of these negotiated processes. Think for a moment of theteacher who uses an example the students do not understand. Accordingto research by Darling (1989), students signal their lack of understand-ing in one of three ways. They provide specific information on what theydo not understand and request clarification (focused/directive strategy).Here the student is very direct (How is self-efficacy different from inter-nal locus of control?). A second strategy (focused non-directive) signalsa lack of understanding but the student does not ask for clarification (Idont understand what you mean by multiple intelligence). The thirdstrategy (personally qualified) entails a series of questions or mazes thatthe teacher must work through to provide clarification (Why am Iwrong, I said the same thing that Lindsey said?).

The research by Darling (1989) and Kendrick and Darling (1990) sug-gests that clarity is relational. These findings resonate with Civikly(1992a) and Eisenberg (1984) who argued that clarity is embedded in arelational context. Understanding is negotiated between teachers andstudents in instructional episodes. Teachers or students introduce con-cepts which are discussed, critiqued, and clarified. Clarity is compro-mised when closure is not brought to these episodes. The nature of thestudentteacher relationship also plays a role in the way these episodesunfold. Some teachers can read the nonverbal behavior of students andrecognize that an example does not make sense. From this feedback anew example is introduced and the information continues to be negoti-ated. In our judgment, then, it is best to consider clarity an episodic andrelational process.

Teacher Immediacy

An extensive body of literature has examined the effects of teacherimmediacy on learning. After summarizing the literature Rodriguez,Plax, and Kearney (1996) claimed: No other teacher communicationvariable has been so consistently associated with increases in bothstudents affective and cognitive learning in the classroom (p. 293). Thisclaim, while compelling, may be overstated. The role of immediacy inlearning is a bit cloudy.

Teacher immediacy is anchored in the research of Mehrabian (1969a,1969b, 1970a, 1970b, 1971) who argued that people move toward those


they like and away from those they dislike. It is important to emphasizethat Mehrabian believed that immediacy was communicated throughimplicit nonverbal codes. Immediacy is primarily signaled through non-verbal behavior. Andersen (1979) extended the immediacy construct tothe instructional setting. She reasoned that the nonverbal behaviors thatreduce physical and psychological distance between teachers andstudents would positively impact learning. Behaviors such as smiling, eyecontact, a relaxed body posture, and movement toward students, signalimmediacy. Andersen found that nonverbal immediacy positively influ-enced student affect or their feelings about the teacher and the course butdid not influence how well students did on a standardized measure ofcognitive learning.

After the publication of Andersens original article, a number of stud-ies explored the effects of immediacy on learning. These studies haveconsistently reported positive correlations between measures of immedi-acy (nonverbal and verbal) and affective learning (e.g. Christensen &Menzel, 1998; Gorham, 1988; Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorensen, 1988;Kearney, Plax, & Wendt-Wasco, 1985; Kelly & Gorham, 1988; Moore,Masterson, Christophel, & Shea, 1996; Powell & Harville, 1990;Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). However, this program of research has notbeen successful in explaining the effects of immediacy on cognitive learn-ing. At best, these studies reveal that students believe they learn morefrom immediate teachers. However, no study demonstrates that testscores or other cognitive measures are impacted by immediacy in anyclear and consistent way.

Hess and Smythe (2001) contended that four models have been usedto explain the relationship between immediacy and cognitive learning.The learning model was initially advanced by Andersen (1979) and pro-posed that immediacy directly influences learning. The teacher whoengages in positive immediacy will engender positive student outcomes.Studies testing this assertion have found no association between imme-diacy and test scores. Andersens seminal investigation found positiveassociations between immediacy and affective orientations to the classand teacher but there was no impact on test scores.

The motivation model, hypothesized that immediacy facilitates anindirect affect on learning (Christophel, 1990; Richmond, 1990).Immediacy engenders state motivation (how students feel about a par-ticular class and teacher) and as a consequence students study harder, goto class, increase their study time and learn more.

Rodriguez, Plax, and Kearney (1996) advanced the affective learningmodel which also hypothesized an indirect relationship between imme-diacy and cognitive learning. In this model, affective learning serves as atrigger or mediator for cognitive learning. Immediacy primes affectivelearning which is a precursor to cognitive learning.

42 Foundations

The arousal model twists the previous explanations and argues thatimmediacy creates arousal which increases attention and learning.Comstock, Rowell, and Bowers, (1995) proposed that the relationshipbetween immediacy and cognitive learning is curvilinear. They foundthat moderate amounts of teacher immediacy had the greatest impact oncognitive learning. The teacher who displays no immediacy puts studentsto sleep and the teacher who has too much immediacy may create anxi-ety or tension.

According to Hess and Smythe (2001), the studies testing these modelshave several flaws. First, the studies have not provided cognitive expla-nations of immediacy. The studies show patterns of association betweenimmediacy and a number of outcomes such as affective learning, butthey do not explain why these associations exist.

The measure of immediacy is the second flaw identified by Hess andSmythe (2001). The authors contend that too many studies have reliedon self-reports rather than actual teacher behavior. The danger with self-report is that student judgments of immediacy might be confounded withother factors. For example, teachers might be considered immediatebecause they are an easy grader, bring food to class, or meet studentneeds. What is driving the student evaluation of immediacy is difficult todetermine. In addition, extant instrumentation has departed from theoriginal conception of immediacy. Gorhams (1988) measure of verbalimmediacy, for example, is predicated on a presumed relationshipbetween teaching effectiveness and immediacy. Immediacy and teachingeffectiveness may be correlated but they are different constructs.

The third flaw concerns the measures of cognitive learning. A numberof studies have used student reports of learning. In a typical study,students are asked to estimate what they have learned rather than tospecifically measure what they learned. Hess and Smythe (2001) arguedthat students are not able to accurately measure what they learned.Students may vary in terms of their personal orientations to learning andhow the teacher facilitates it. Judgments of learning may also be influ-enced by the relationship between a teacher and student. Students mayinflate what they learn from a teacher they like and may deflate whatthey learn from a teacher they dislike.

Hess and Smythe contended that previous studies attempting to delin-eate the relationship between immediacy and cognitive learning havebeen misdirected. They argued that immediacys primary function is topromote a positive relationship with the student. To test their con-tentions, the authors designed a study to assess the impact of teacherimmediacy on student affect and cognitive learning. The results indicatedthat immediacy was positively related with perceived learning and likingfor the instructor. A positive relationship between teacher affect andreported learning was also found. However, immediacy did not impact


test performance. Finally, the results indicated that students were moti-vated by self-interest rather than teacher behavior. Grades were theprimary motivating factor for the students.

The results of this investigation support the theory advanced by Hessand Smythe (2001). Immediacy played a substantial role in student per-ceptions about the teacher, the course and their perceived learning. It hadlittle to do with how they performed on tests.

What can we say then about immediacy and its role in classroom learn-ing? We agree that the primary impact of immediacy is to cultivate a posi-tive relationship with the student. In terms of motivation, immediacyprobably has its most pronounced impact on situational interest. This inter-pretation is closest to the arousal model explicated by Comstock, Rowell,and Bowers (1995). Test scores and other standardized assessments havemore to do with student skill and academic engagement time (amount oftime studying for a test) than with teacher communication behavior.

We are hesitant to completely abandon the role that immediacy playsin cognitive learning. Lets return to Mehrabians initial contention thatpeople move toward those they like and away from those they dislikeand consider its role in cognition. The research clearly indicates thatimmediacy teachers are perceived to be approachable. Immediacy helpsshape an environment where students feel comfortable to seek clarifica-tion and help on academic tasks. Students probably do not think muchabout their teacher at night when they are studying for a quiz or delib-erating on the assignments they should complete. Previous research hasnot found a link between academic engagement time and immediacy(Powell & Aston 1994; Sine 1995), self-interest, levels of motivation,parents, and the significance of the assignment will influence how muchtime students spend on academic tasks.

Reflection

What role does teacher immediacy play in learning?

What are some negative aspects of teacher immediacy?

Communication Apprehension

The previous section examined the communication behaviors andprocesses that are positively associated with learning. We will concludethis chapter by discussing communication apprehension (CA), a constructthat has been found to constrain leaning in the classroom. Communicationapprehension is one of the most researched constructs in the discipline ofcommunication but has not been discussed much in education. Literally

44 Foundations

hundreds of studies have been done and the results have been ratherconsistent. In terms of the instructional context, the research indicatesthat students who experience communication apprehension have moredifficulty in school than students who are low in communicationapprehension.

McCroskey and McCroskey (2002) identified four major effects of com-munication apprehension: internal discomfort, communication avoidance,communication withdrawal, and overcommunication. The one universalfinding is that individuals with high CA experience internal discomfort andnegative arousal when they face an event that requires communication.Frequently these feelings are connected with fear. These states may rangefrom a warm flush to terror. Because individuals have such negativeresponses to the communication events related to the negative states, theyfrequently attempt to avoid them. Because an oral report may be terrify-ing, the apprehensive student will do everything to avoid giving it. If it isimpossible to completely avoid the situation, a communication apprehen-sive student may try to physically or psychologically withdraw from it. Thestudent who is scheduled to do a report may say, I didnt do it, or mayrespond to a teachers question by saying, I dont know. Both strategiesallow the student to step back from communication involvement.According to McCroskey and McCroskey (2002), on rare occasions, astudent with communication apprehension may attempt to deal with thenegative arousal by overparticipating in communication. These studentsmay attempt to talk through their anxiety. In these circumstances, theindividual may be more concerned with the quantity rather than the qual-ity of the interaction.

There are significant academic consequences for students with highcommunication apprehension. They obtain lower grade point averagesand have poorer attitudes about school (McCroskey & Andersen, 1976).Because of their feelings about communication, apprehensive studentsare less likely to seek help from teachers and are less likely to articulatetheir instructional needs. These students also have fewer peer friend-ships. In a study designed to assess college student retention and acade-mic success, McCroskey, Booth-Butterfield, and Payne (1989) found thathigh communication apprehensives were more likely to drop out ofschool than low apprehensives. The effects of communication apprehen-sion had its greatest effect in the first two years of college.

Similar findings have been observed in elementary and middle school.Comadena and Prusank (1988) assessed the relationship between com-munication apprehension and academic achievement among elementaryand middle school students. The findings indicated that students whohad high communication apprehension received the lowest scores on allmeasures of academic achievement. The authors also found that com-munication apprehension increased with grade level. Communication


apprehension increased 17% from the second grade to the eighth grade.The data do not indicate if these shifts are related to academic success orother factors. Whatever the reason, communication apprehension seemsto increase with grade levels and is associated with academic success.

Chesebro et al. (1992) conducted an extensive study on the potentialrole of communication apprehension for at risk students. At riskstudents were those failing to achieve in school or dropping out ofschool. The authors collected data at 14 urban, large predominantlyminority middle and junior high school. A total of 2,793 students par-ticipated in the study. The results indicated that at risk students aresubstantially more apprehensive about speaking in groups and speakingin dyads. The authors noted that these data are troubling because somuch of instruction occurs in these contexts.

The results also indicated that at risk students perceived themselvesto be less competent in communication. The data indicated that nearlyall of the differences were related to communication with acquaintancesand strangers. The at risk students did not feel competent in these set-tings. Once more, these data are distressing because students frequentlywork in groups or teams. Their feelings about communication in thesecontexts may have deleterious effects on their academic performance.

Rosenfeld, Grant, and McCroskey (1995) reasoned that if communi-cation apprehension negatively affects at risk students, it should havethe opposite effect for academically talented students. The authors stud-ied (710th grade) who were accepted into a gifted program at DukeUniversity and found that gifted students had lower apprehension thanthe at risk students assessed by Chesebro et al. (1992). Further, thefindings indicated that gifted students had less apprehension in the smallgroup setting than at risk students.

Causes of Communication Apprehension

The data showing the negative effects of communication apprehensionare rather consistent. There is controversy about its causes. Daly andFriedrich (1981) stated that communication apprehension might becaused by genetics, skill acquisition, modeling, and reinforcement.

The genetic explanation proposes that communication apprehension isrelated to factors such as sociability, physical appearance, body shape,and competence in motor skills. Each of these predispositions areenhanced or constrained by environmental factors.

Another way that communication apprehension may emerge, accord-ing to Daly and Friedrich (1981), involves the way in which social skillsare acquired. Skills such as language use, sensitivity to nonverbal com-munication interaction management skills may be lacking in the com-munication apprehensive student. The protypical geek or nerd maybe the student who lacks social skill and cannot fit into the flow of

46 Foundations

social interaction. As a result, communication is not very rewarding andnew skills are not developed.

The third explanation that Daly and Friedrich (1981) discussed ismodeling. If the child is around communicatively apprehensive individu-als, then these are the behaviors modeled. When the individual is askedto engage in communication behaviors which have no frame of reference,the result will be anxiety and apprehension.

According to Daly and Friedrich, the most frequently advanced expla-nation of communication is explained through reinforcement theory. Anindividual who receives positive reinforcement for communication will notdevelop communication apprehension. The child who is told to be quiet,and not encouraged to communicate may develop negative attitudes aboutcommunication. McCroskey and Richmond (1978) found that studentsfrom rural areas and small towns reported higher communication appre-hension levels than students from medium-sized and urban communities.The authors argued that this finding is the first theoretically projectedrelationship between an environmental factor and communication appre-hension that has been empirically verified (p. 247). When comparing theenvironmental factors influencing attitudes about communication, urbanchildren face more communication demands than rural children. Forexample, the rural students studied by McCroskey and Richmondattended small homogenous schools with little ethnic diversity. A commonand narrow set of skills led to communication competence in these com-munities. In contrast, urban students face a much wider set of communi-cation constraints. As a result, they must develop a broader range ofcompetencies in order to be successful.

A new perspective, one that challenges the reinforcement explanationis emerging. Some researchers (Beatty, McCroskey, & Heisel, 1998;Beatty, McCroskey, & Valencic, 2001) challenge the reinforcementexplanation and contend that neurobiological processes primarily deter-mine communication apprehension. Beatty, McCroskey, and Heisel(1998) state that communication apprehension is primarily a functionof two interrelated neurobiological systems, the thresholds of which arethe products of genetic inheritance (p. 224).

Opt and Loffredo (2000) assessed the relationship between communica-tion apprehension and the Meyers-Briggs personality type preferences. TheMeyers-Briggs assessment draws from Jungian psychology, a perspective thatanchors personality in inborn traits. The authors argued that communica-tion apprehension is not something to overcome but is a preference not tocommunicate. The participants were assessed on extraversionintroversion,intuitionsensing, thinkingfeeling, and judgingperceiving and on their levelof communication apprehension. The results indicated that introverts andsensors scored significantly higher on communication apprehension. Theauthors concluded that communication apprehension is perceived as aproblem when it is viewed through the perspective of extroverts. For the


introvert, it is normal to not openly communicate or seek out communica-tion exchanges. The introvert prefers quiet places and solitary activities. Theauthors conclude by suggesting that one way to deal with apprehension ishelp them become more complete in their personalities by confronting andexpanding less preferred competencies.

The naturenurture debate of communication apprehension has notbeen resolved and the reader is encouraged to read additional literature onthis topic (Beatty, McCroskey, & Valencic, 2001; Condit, 2000. Whethercommunication apprehension is rooted in learning or theory or in biology,the teacher must have some strategy for dealing with it. The student whoexhibits communication apprehension experiences numerous educationaldisadvantages. McCroskey and McCroskey (2002) discussed several waysthat a teacher can prevent and reduce student apprehension. Specifically,they suggested that teachers:

Reduce oral communication demands

1 Avoid testing through talk.2 Avoid grading on participation.3 Avoid alphabetical seating.4 Avoid randomly calling on students.

Make communication a rewarding experience

1 Praise students when they participate.2 Try to avoid indicating that any answer is completely wrong.3 Try not to punish any student for talking.

Be consistent about communication

1 Try to be consistent in how you handle student talk.2 Be very clear about any rules you must have regarding talking.

Reduce ambiguity, novelty and evaluation

1 Make all assignments as clear and unambiguous as you can.2 Be clear about your grading system.3 Avoid surprises.

Increase student control over success.

1 Give the student options.2 Be certain that the student can avoid communication and still do

well in the course.

Reflection

How would you deal with communication apprehension in

your class?

48 Foundations

Summary

This chapter has attempted to explicate the relationship between com-munication and learning. We have proposed that students bring a rich setof experiences, language skills, and interests that play an important rolein the learning process. We believe that the relationship between class-room communication and learning is a function of three primary factors:student ability, motivation, and communication processes. The researchwe have reviewed suggests that instructional strategies building onstudent strengths positively influence academic performance. We alsoexamined different perspectives on motivation and suggested ways topromote self-efficacy and internality. Finally, we examined the commu-nication processes that shape learning experiences. Teacher questions,clarity and immediacy play important roles in the way instructionalmaterial is presented, processed, and understood.

Learning Activities

Complete an assessment of your multiple intelligences. How dothese preferences influence the way you approach learningtasks?

Several of your students do not seem interested in reading.Which perspective on motivation can you use to devise a way toincrease their interest in reading?

Many teachers use external rewards (prizes, stickers, money) toengage students in learning tasks. What can teachers do toincrease students, learning goals and internal motivation?

Resources

Motivating students to engage in class activitieswww.nwrel.org/request/oct00/engage.html

What do students want and what really motivates them?www.middleweb.com/StdntMotv.html

Encouraging student academic motivationwww.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventions/motivation/motivation.php


Documents

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication